A Draft of Our Party Programme[1]

Written:Written at the end of 1899Published:First published in 1924 in the first edition of V. I. Lenin’sCollected Works, Vol. 1.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 4,

      pages227-254.Translated:Transcription\Markup:R. CymbalaandD. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Thething to begin with, most likely, is the question of whether there is
      really a pressing need for a programme of the Russian
      Social-Democrats. From comrades active in Russia we have heard the opinion
      expressed that at this particular moment there is no special need to draw
      up a programme; that the urgent question is one of developing and
      strengthening local organisations, of placing agitation and the delivery
      of literature on a more sound footing; that it would be better to postpone
      the elaboration of a programme until such time as when the movement stands
      on firmer ground; that a programme might, at the moment, turn out to be
      unfounded.

Wedo not share this opinion. It goes without saying that “every step of
      real movement is more important than a dozen

      programmes,”[2]as Karl Marx said. But neither Marx nor any other theoretician or
      practical worker in the Social-Democratic movement has ever denied the
      tremendous importance of a programme for the consolidation and consistent
      activity of a political party. The Russian Social-Democrats have just got
      over the period of the most bitter polemics with socialists of other
      trends and with non-socialists who were unwilling to understand Russian
      Social-Democracy; they have also got over the initial stages of the
      movement during which the work was carried on piecemeal by small local
      organisations. The need for unity, for the establishment of common
      literature, for the appearance of Russian workers’ newspapers arises out
      of the real situation, and the foundation in the spring of 1898 of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which announced its intention of
      elaborating a Party programme in the near future, showed clearly that the
      demand for a programme grew out of the needs of themovement itself. At the present time the urgent question of our movement
      is no longer that of developing the former scattered “amateur”
      activities, but of uniting—of organisation. This is a step for which
      a programme is a necessity. The programme must formulate our basic views;
      precisely establish our immediate political tasks; point out the immediate
      demands that must show the area of agitational activity; give unity to the
      agitational work, expand and deepen it, thus raising it from fragmentary
      partial agitation for petty, isolated demands to the status of agitation
      for the sum total of Social-Democratic demands. Today, when
      Social-Democratic activity has aroused a fairly wide circle of social 1st
      intellectuals and class-conscious workers, it is urgently necessary to
      strengthen connections between them by a programme and in this way give
      all of them a sound basis for further, more extensive, activity. Lastly, a
      programme is urgently necessary because Russian public opinion is very
      often most profoundly mistaken in respect of the real tasks and methods of
      action of the Russian Social-Democrats: these mistaken views in some cases
      grow naturally in the morass of political putrefaction that is our real
      life, in others they are artificially nurtured by the opponents of
      Social-Democracy. In any case, this is a fact that has to be taken into
      account. The working-class movement, merging with socialism and with the
      political struggle, must establish a party that will have to dispel all
      these misunderstandings, if it is to stand at the head of all the
      democratic elements in Russian society. The objection may be raised,
      further, that the present moment is inopportune for the elaboration of a
      programme because there are differences of opinion that give rise to
      polemics among the Social-Democrats themselves. I believe the contrary to
      be true—this is another argumentin favourof the necessity
      for a programme. On the one hand, since the polemic has begun, it is to be
      hoped that in the discussion of the draft programme all views and all
      shades of views will be afforded expression, that the discussion will be
      comprehensive. The polemic indicates that the Russian Social-Democrats are
      showing a revived interest in extensive questions pertaining to the aims
      of our movement and to its immediate tasks and tactics; precisely such a
      revival is essential to a discussion of the draft programme.On the other hand, if the polemic is not to be fruitless, if it is not to
      degenerate into personal rivalry, if it is not to lead to a confusion of
      views, to a confounding of enemies and friends, it is absolutely essential
      that the question of the programme be introduced into the polemic. The
      polemic will be of benefit only if it makes clear in what the differences
      actually consist,how profound they are, whether they are
      differences of substance or differences on partial questions, whether or
      not these differences interfere with common work in the ranks of one and
      the same party.Onlythe introduction of the programme question
      into the polemic, only a definite statement by the two polemising parties
      on theirprogrammaticviews, can provide an answer to all these
      questions, questions that insistently demand an answer. The elaboration of
      a common programme for the Party should not, of course, put an end to all
      polemics; it will firmly establish those basic views on the character, the
      aims, and the tasks of our movement which must serve as the banner of a
      fighting party, a party that remains consolidated and united despite
      partial differences of opinion among its members on partial questions.

Andnow, to the matter.

Whena programme of the Russian Social-Democrats is spoken of, all eyes
      naturally turn towards the members of the Emancipation of Labour group who
      founded Russian Social-Democracy and have done so much for its theoretical
      and practical development. Our older comrades were not slow in responding
      to the demands of the Russian Social-Democratic movement. Almost at the
      very same time— in the spring of 1898—when preparations were
      being made for the congress of Russian Social-Democrats which laid the
      foundations for the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, P. B. Axelrod
      published his pamphlet,Present Tasks and Tactics of the Russian
      Social-Democrats(Geneva, 1898; the foreword being dated March 1898),
      and reprinted as an appendix to it “A Draft Programme of the Russian
      Social-Democrats,” published by the Emancipation of Labour group as early
      as 1885.

Weshall begin with a discussion of this draft. Despite the fact that it
      was published almost 15 years ago, it is our opinion that, by and large,
      it adequately serves itspurpose and is on the level of present-day Social-Democratic theory. The
      draft designates precisely that class which alone, in Russia as in other
      countries, is capable of being an in dependent fighter for
      socialism—the working class, the “industrial
      proletariat”; it states the aim which this class must set
      itself—“the conversion of all means and objects of production into
      social property,” “the abolition of commodity production” and
      “its replacement by a new system of social production”—“the
      communist revolution”; it indicates the “inevitable
      preliminary condition” for “the reconstruction of social
      relations”—“the seizure of political power by the working
      class”; it affirms the international solidarity of the proletariat
      and the necessity for an “element of variety in the programmes of
      the Social-Democrats of different states in accordance with the social
      conditions in each of them taken separately”; it points to the
      specific feature of Russia “where the masses of working people
      suffer under the double yoke of developing capitalism and moribund
      patriarchal economy”; it shows the connection between the Russian
      revolutionary movement and the process of the creation (by the forces of
      developing capitalism) of “a new class, the industrial
      proletariat—the most responsive,mobile,and developed”; it
      indicates the necessity for the formation of “a revolutionary
      working-class party” and specifies “its first political
      task”—“the overthrow of absolutism”; it shows the “means
      of political struggle” and formulates its basic demands.

Allthese elements are, in our opinion, absolutely essential to a
      programme of the Social-Democratic working-class party; they all enunciate
      theses that have, until now, been again and again confirmed both in the
      development of socialist theory and in the development of the
      working-class movement of all countries, specifically, in the development
      of Russian social thought and the Russian working-class movement. In view
      of this, the Russian Social-Democrats can and should, in our opinion, make
      the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group—a draft requiring
      editorial changes, corrections, and additions only in respect of
      details— the basis of the programme of the Russian Social-Democratic
      working-class party.

Letus try to note which of these changes of detail we deem advisable and in
      regard to which it would be desirableto have an exchange of opinions among all Russian Social-Democrats and
      class-conscious workers.

Inthe first place, there must, of course, be some slight changes in the
      structural character of the programme; in 1885 it was the programme of a
      group of revolutionaries abroad who had proved able to define the only
      path of development for the movement that offered success, but who, at
      that time, still did not see before them anything like an extensive and
      independent working-class movement in Russia. In 1900 it has become a
      question of a programme for a working-class party founded by a large
      number of Russian Social-Democratic organisations. In addition to the
      editorial changes that are in consequence essential (and that need not be
      dealt with in detail, since they are self-evident), this difference makes
      it necessary to bring into the fore ground and emphasise more strongly the
      process of economic development that is engendering the material and
      spiritual conditions for the Social-Democratic working-class movement, and
      the class struggle of the proletariat which the Social-Democratic Party
      sets itself the aim of organising. The cardinal point of the programme
      should be the characterisation of the basic features of the present-day
      economic system of Russia and its development (cf. in the programme of the
      Emancipation of Labour group: “Capitalism has achieved tremendous
      success in Russia since the abolition of serfdom. The old system of
      natural economy is giving way to commodity production...”). This should be
      followed by an outline of the fundamental tendency of capitalism—the
      splitting of the people into a bourgeoisie and a proletariat, the growth
      of “the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation,

      exploitation.”[3]These famous words of Marx are repeated in the second paragraph of the
      Erfurt Programme of the German Social-Democratic

      Party,[4]and the critics that are grouped about Bernstein have recently made
      particularly violent attacks precisely against this point, repeating the
      old objections raised by bourgeois liberals and social-politicians against
      the “theory of impoverishment.” In our opinion the polemic that has
      raged round this question has demonstrated theutter
      groundlessnessof such “criticism.” Bernstein himself admitted
      that the above words of Marx were true as a characterisation of thetendencyofcapitalism—a tendency that becomes a reality in the absence of the
      class struggle of the proletariat against it, in the absence of labour
      protection laws achieved by the working class. It is precisely In Russia
      today that we see the above tendency manifesting its effect with
      tremendous force on the peasantry and the workers. Further, Kautsky has
      shown that these words on the growth of “the mass of misery, etc.,”
      are true in the sense, not only of characterising a tendency, but of
      indicating the growth of “social poverty,” i.e., the growth of the
      disparity between the condition of the proletariat and the living standard
      of the bourgeoisie—the standard of social consumption that continues
      to rise parallel with the gigantic growth in the productivity of
      labour. Lastly, these words are true also in the sense that in “the
      border regions” of capitalism (i.e., those countries and those
      branches of the national economy in which capitalism is only just emerging
      and clashing with pre-capitalist conditions) the growth of
      poverty—not only “social,” but also the most horrible physical
      poverty, to the extent of starvation and death from
      starvation—assumes a mass scale. Everybody knows that this is ten
      times mere applicable to Russia than to any other European country. And
      so, the words about the growth of “the mass of misery, oppression,
      slavery, degradation, exploitation” must, in our opinion,
      imperatively be included in our

      programme— first,because they
      faithfully describe the basic and essential features of capitalism, they
      characterise precisely the process that unrolls before our eyes and that
      is one of the chief reasons for the emergence of the working-class
      movement and socialism in Russia; secondly, because these words provide a
      fund of material for agitation, because they summarise a whole series of
      phenomena that most oppress the masses of the workers, but, at the same
      time, most arouse their indignation (unemployment, low wages, under
      nourishment, famine, the Draconian discipline of capital, prostitution,
      the growth in the number of domestics, etc., etc.); and, thirdly, because
      by this precise characterisation of the ruinous effect of capitalism and
      of the necessary, inevitable indignation of the workers we draw a line
      between ourselves and the indecisive elements who “sympathise” with
      the proletariat and demand “reforms” for itsbenefit, while trying to occupy the “golden mean” between the
      proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between the autocratic government and the
      revolutionaries. It is particularly necessary today to dissociate
      ourselves from such people, if we are to strive for a united and
      consolidated working-class party that conducts a determined and unswerving
      struggle for political liberty and socialism.

Herea few words are in order on our attitude to the Erfurt
      Programme. From what has been said above it is clear to everyone that we
      consider it necessary to make changes in the draft of the Emancipation of
      Labour group that will bring the programme of the Russian Social-Democrats
      closer to that of the German. We are not in the least afraid to say that
      we want to imitate the Erfurt Programme: there is nothing bad in imitating
      what is good, and precisely to day, when we so often hear opportunist and
      equivocal criticism of that programme, we consider it our duty to speak
      openly in its favour. Imitating, however, must under no circumstances be
      simply copying. Imitation and borrowing are quite legitimate insofar as in
      Russia we see the samebasicprocesses of the development of
      capitalism, the samebasictasks for the socialists and the
      working class; but they must not, under any circumstances, lead to our
      forgetting thespecific featuresof Russia which must findfull expressionin the specific features of our
      programme. Running ahead somewhat, let us say here that among these
      specific features are, first, our political tasks and means of struggle;
      and, secondly, our struggle against all remnants of the patriarchal,
      pre-capitalist regime and the specific posing of thepeasantquestion arising out of that struggle.

Havingmade this necessary reservation, let us continue. The statement on
      the growth of “the mass of misery” must be followed by a
      characterisation of theclass struggleof the proletariat—a
      declaration of the aim of this struggle (the conversion of all means of
      production into social property and the replacement of capitalist
      production by socialist production), a declaration of the international
      character of the working-class movement, a declaration of thepoliticalcharacter of the class struggle and itsimmediateobjective (the winning of political liberty). It is
      particularly necessary to recognise the struggle against the autocracy for
      politicalliberties as the first political task of the working-class party; this
      task should, in our opinion, be explained by an exposition of the class
      nature of the present-day Russian autocracy and of the need to overthrow
      it, not only in the interests of the working class, but also in the
      interests of social development as a whole. Such a description is
      essential both in regard to theory, because, from the standpoint of the
      basic ideas of Marxism, the interests of social development are higher
      than the interests of the proletariat—the interests of the
      working-class movement as a whole are higher than the interests of a
      separate section of the workers or of separate phases of the movement; and
      in regard to practice, the elucidation is essential because of the need to
      characterise the focal point to which all the variety of Social-Democratic
      activity—propaganda, agitation, and organisation—must be
      directed and round which it must be concentrated.In addition, we
      think a special paragraph of the programme should be devoted to the
      provision that the Social-Democratic working-class party set itself theaimof supporting every revolutionary movement against the
      autocracy and the struggle against all attempts on the part of the
      autocratic government to corrupt and befog the political consciousness of
      the people by means of bureaucratic guardianship and sham doles, by means
      of that demagogic policy which our German comrades have called the“Peitsche und Zuckerbrot”policy (whip and biscuit
      policy). The biscuit=the doles to those who, for the sake of partial and
      individual improvements in their material conditions, renounce their
      political demands and remain the humble slaves of police violence (hostels
      for students, etc., and for workers—one has only to recall the
      proclamations of Minister of Finance Witte at the time of the
      St. Petersburg strikes in 1896 and

      1897,[5]or the speeches in defence of the workers delivered by representatives of
      the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the commission on the promulgation of
      the law of June 2, 1897). The whip=the in creased persecution of those who,
      despite the doles, remain fighters for political liberty (the drafting of
      students into the

      army[6];
      the circular of August 12, 1897, on the transportation of workers to
      Siberia; increased persecution of Social-Democracy, etc.). The biscuit is
      to decoy the weak, to bribe and corrupt them; the whip is to overawe and
      “renderharmless” honest and class-conscious fighters for the working-class
      cause and for the cause of the people. As long as the autocracy exists
      (and we must now in drawing up our programme take into account the
      existence of the autocracy, since its collapse would inevitably call forth
      such huge changes in political conditions that they would compel the
      working-class party to make essential changes in the formulation of its
      immediate political tasks)—as long as the autocracy exists, we must
      expect a continued renewal and increase of the government’s demagogic
      measures. Consequently, we must conduct against them a systematic
      struggle, exposing the falseness of the police benefactors of the people,
      showing the connection between government reforms and the struggle of the
      workers, teaching the proletariat to make use of every reform to
      strengthen its fighting position and extend and deepen the working-class
      movement. The point on the support forallfighters against the
      autocracy is necessary in the programme, because Russian Social-Democracy,
      indissolubly fused with the advanced elements of the Russian working
      class, must raise thegeneral-democraticbanner, in order to
      group about itself all sections and all elements capable of fighting for
      political liberty or at least of supporting that fight in some way or
      another.

Suchis our view on the demands that must be met by the section of our
      programme dealing withprinciplesand on the basic postulates
      that must be expressed in it with the maximum precision and clarity. In
      our opinion the following should be deleted from the draft programme of
      the Emancipation of Labour group (from the part dealing with principles):
      1) statements on the form of peasant land tenure (we shall
      discuss the peasant question later); 2) statements on the causes of
      “instability,” etc., of the intelligentsia; 3) the point on the
      “abolition of the present system of political representation and its
      replacement by direct people’s legislation”; 4) the point on the
      “means of political struggle.” True, we do not see anything obsolete
      or erroneous in the last point, but, on the contrary, believe that the
      means of struggle should be precisely those indicated by the Emancipation
      of Labour group (agitation, revolutionary organisation, transition at
      “a suitable moment” to determined attack, not rejecting,in principle, even terror);but we believe that the programme of aworking-class partyis no
      place for indications of the means of activity that were necessary in the
      programme of a group of revolutionaries abroad in 1885. The programme
      should leave the question of means open, allowing the choice of means to
      the militant organisations and to Party congresses that determine thetacticsof the Party. Questions of tactics, however, can hardly
      be introduced into the programme (with the exception of the most important
      questions, questions ofprinciple, such as our attitude to other
      fighters against the autocracy). Questions of tactics will be discussed by
      the Party newspaper as they arise and will be eventually decided at Party
      congresses. The same applies, in our opinion, to the question of
      terror. The Social-Democrats must imperatively under take the discussion
      of this question—of course, from the standpoint of tactics and not
      of principle—because the growth of the movement leads of its own
      accord, spontaneously, to more frequent cases of the killing of spies and
      to greater, more impassioned indignation in the ranks of the workers and
      socialists who see ever greater numbers of their comrades being tortured
      to death in solitary confinement and at places of exile. In order to leave
      nothing unsaid, we will make the reservation that, in our own personal
      opinion, terror isnotadvisable as a means of struggle atthe present moment, that the Party (asaparty)
      must renounce it (until there occurs a change of circumstances that might
      lead to a change of tactics) and concentrateall its energyon
      organisation and the regular delivery of literature. This is not the place
      to speak in greater detail on the question.

Asfar as the issue of direct people’s legislation is concerned, it seems
      to us that at the present moment it should not be included in the
      programme. The victory of socialism must not be connected, in principle,
      with thesubstitutionof direct people’s legislation for
      parliamentarism. This was proved, in our view, by the discussion on the
      Erfurt Programme and by Kautsky’s book on people’s legislation. Kautsky
      admits (on the basis of an historical and political analysis) that a
      certain benefit accrues from people’s legislation under the following
      conditions: 1) the absence of an antithesis between town and village or
      the preponderance of the towns, 2) the existence of highly developed
      politicalparties; 3) “the absence of excessively centralised state power,
      independently opposed to people’s legislation.” In Russia we seeexactly the oppositeconditions, and the danger of
      “people’s legislation” degenerating into an imperialist
      “plebiscite” would be particularly great in our country. If
      Kautsky could say, in 1893, speaking of Germany and Austria, that
      “for us, East-Europeans, direct people’s legislation belongs to the
      sphere of the ‘state of the future,’” what is there to be said of Russia?
      We, therefore, believe that at present, when the autocracy is dominant in
      Russia, we should limit ourselves to the demand for a “democratic
      constitution” and prefer the first two points of the practical part
      of the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group to the first two
      points of the practical part of the “Erfurt Programme.”

Nowlet us look at the practical part of the programme. This part
      consists, in our opinion, of three sections, in substance if not in
      arrangement: 1) the demands for general democratic reforms; 2) the demands
      for measures of protection for the workers; and 3) the demands for
      measures in the Interests of the peasants. There is hardly any need to
      make substantial changes in the “draft programme” of the
      Emancipation of Labour group as regards the first section, which demands:
      1) universal franchise; 2) salaries for deputies; 3) general, secular,
      free, and compulsory education, etc.; 4) inviolability of the person and
      domicile of citizens; 5) uncurtailed freedom of conscience, speech,
      assembly, etc. (here it should perhaps be added specifically: the right to
      strike); 6) freedom of movement and occupation (here it would probably be
      correct to add: “freedom of migration” and “the complete
      abolition of passports”); 7) full equality of all citizens, etc.; 8)
      replacement of the permanent army by the general arming of the people; 9)
      “the revision of our entire civil and criminal legislation, the
      abolition of social estate divisions and of punishments incompatible with
      the dignity of man.” Here it would be well to add: “complete
      equality of rights for men and women.” To this section should be added the
      demand for fiscal reforms formulated in the programme of the Emancipation
      of Labour group as one of the demands to “be put forward by the
      working-class party, basing itself on these fundamental political
      rights”—“theabolition of the present system of taxation and the institution of a
      progressive income tax.” Lastly, there should also be here a demand for
      “the election of civil servants by the people; for every citizen to
      be granted the right to prosecute in court any government official without
      first having to make a complaint to superiors.”

Inthe second section of the practical demands we find in the programme of
      the Emancipation of Labour group a general demand for “the
      legislative regulation of relations between workers (urban and rural) and
      employers, and the organisation of a relevant inspectorate with workers’
      representation.” We think that theworking-class partyshould
      define the demands made on this point more thoroughly and in greater
      detail; the party should demand:

      1) an eight-hour working day; 2) prohibition of night-work and prohibition
      of the employment of children under 14 years of age; 3) uninterrupted rest
      periods, for every worker, of no less than 36 hours a week; 4) extension
      of factory legislation and the Factory Inspectorate to all branches of
      industry and agriculture, to government factories, to artisan
      establishments, and to handicraftsmen working at home; election, by the
      workers, of assistant inspectors having the same rights as the inspectors;
      5) establishment of factory and rural courts for all branches of industry
      and agriculture, with judges elected from the employers and the workers in
      equal numbers; 6) unconditional prohibition everywhere of payment in kind;
      7) legislation fixing the responsibility of factory owners for all
      accidents and maiming of workers, both industrial and agricultural; 8)
      legislation fixing payment of wages at least once a week in all cases of
      the hire of workers of all kinds; 9) repeal of all laws violating the
      equality of employers and employees (for example, the laws making factory
      and farm workers criminally responsible for leaving their work, the laws
      giving employers greater freedom to cancel hiring agreements than their
      employees, etc.). (It goes without saying that we are only outlining
      desirable demands without giving them the final formulation required for
      the draft.) This section of the programme must (in conjunction with the
      preceding section) provide the basic, guiding principles for agitation,
      without in any way, of course, hindering agitators in this or that
      locality, branchof production, factory, etc., from putting forward demands in a somewhat
      modified form, demands that are more concrete or more specific. In drawing
      up this section of the programme, we should strive, therefore, to avoid
      two extremes— on the one hand, we must not omit any one of the main,
      basic demands that hold great significance for theentireworking
      class; on the other, we must not go into minute particulars with which it
      would hardly be rational to load the programme.

Thedemand for “state assistance for producers’ associations”
      in the programme of the Emancipation of Labour group should, in our
      opinion, be completely eliminated. The experience of other countries, as
      well as theoretical considerations, and the specific features of Russian
      life (the tendency of the bourgeois liberals and the police government to
      flirt with “artels” and with “the patronage ... of
      people’s industry,” etc.)—all this should counsel against our
      putting forward this demand. (Fifteen years ago, of course, matters were
      quite different in many respects;thenit was quite natural for
      Social-Democrats to include such a demand in their programme.)

Thereremains the third and last section of the practical part of the
      programme—the demands related to the peas ant question. In the
      programme of the Emancipation of Labour group we find only one demand
      pertaining to this question—the demand for a “radical revision
      of our agrarian relations, i.e., a revision of the conditions of land
      redemption and the allotment of the land to the village communes; the
      granting of the right to refuse an allotment and to leave the village
      commune to those peasants who find it convenient to do so, etc.”

Itseems to me that the basic idea here expressed is perfectly correct and
      that the Social-Democratic working-class party should, in point of fact,
      include a relevant demand in its programme (I say “a relevant
      demand” because I think certain amendments are desirable).

Iunderstand this problem in the following way. The peasant question in
      Russia differs substantially from the peasant question in the West, thesoledifference being that in the West the question is almost
      exclusively one of a peasant in a capitalist, bourgeois society, whereas
      in Russiait is one of a peasant who suffers no less (if not more) frompre-capitalistinstitutions and relations, from thesurvivals
      of serfdom.The role of the peasantry as a class that provides fighters
      against the autocracy and against the survivals of serfdom is by now
      played out in the West, but not yet in Russia. In the West the industrial
      proletariat has long since become completely alienated from the
      countryside; this alienation has been made final by relevant legal
      institutions. In Russia “the industrial proletariat, both by its
      composition and by the conditions of its existence, is to a very great ex
      tent still connected with the countryside” (P. B. Axelrod, op. cit.,
      p. 11). True enough, the differentiation of the peasantry into a petty
      bourgeoisie and into wage-workers is proceeding with great power and
      astounding rapidity in Russia, but it is a process that has not yet come
      to an end, and—what is most important—this process is still
      evolving within the framework of the old institutions of serfdom that
      fetter all the peasants with the heavy chains of collective liability and
      the tax-assessed community. The Russian Social-Democrat, therefore, even
      if he (like the writer of these lines) belongs to the determined opponents
      of the protection or support of small proprietorship or small agricultural
      economy in capitalist society, i.e., even if, on the agrarian question, he
      (like the writer of these lines) is on the side of those Marxists whom the
      bourgeois and opportunists of all stripes love to deride as
      “dogmatists” and “orthodox”—the Russian
      Social-Democrat can and must, without betraying his convictions in the
      slightest, but, rather, because of those convictions, insist that the
      working-class party should in scribe on its bannersupportfor
      the peasantry (not by any meansas a class of small proprietors
      or small farmers),insofar as the peasantry is capable of a
      revolutionary struggle against the survivals of serfdom in general and
      against the autocracy in particular.Do not all of us
      Social-Democrats declare that we are ready to support even the big
      bourgeoisieinsofar as it is capableof arevolutionarystruggle against the above manifestations—how then can we refuse to
      support the petty-bourgeois class, many millions strong, that is
      gradually, step by step, merging with the proletariat? If support for the
      liberal demands of the big bourgeoisie does not mean support of the big
      bourgeoisie, then support for the democraticdemands of the petty bourgeoisie certainly does not mean support of the
      petty bourgeoisie; on the contrary, it is precisely this development which
      political liberty will make possible in Russia that will, with particular
      force, lead to the destruction of small economy under the blows of
      capital. I do not think there will be any arguments among the Social-
      Democrats on this point. The question, therefore, is: 1) how to elaborate
      demands in such a way that theydo not degenerateinto support of
      small property-owners in a capitalist society? and 2) is our peasantry
      capable, at least in part, of arevolutionarystruggle against
      the remnants of serfdom and against absolutism?

Letus begin with the second question. It is doubtful whether anyone will
      deny the existence of revolutionary elements among the Russian
      peasantry. In the post-Reform period, too, we know, there have been
      peasant revolts against the landlords, their stewards, and the government
      officials who support them. Well known are the agrarian killings, revolts,
      etc. Well known is the growing indignation of the peasantry (in whom even
      pitiful fragments of education have already begun to arouse a sense of
      human dignity) against the savage lawlessness of the gang of aristocratic
      wastrels that has been let loose against the peasantry under the title of
      Rural

      Superintendents.[7]Well known is the fact that famines of
      growing frequency involve millions of people who cannot remain passive
      spectators of such “food difficulties.” Well known is the fact of
      the growth of religious sects and rationalism among the peasantry;
      political protests in religious guise are common to all nations at a
      certain stage of their development, and not to Russia alone. The existence
      of revolutionary elements among the peasantry, therefore, is not open to
      the slightest doubt. We do not in the least exaggerate the strength of
      these elements; we do not forget the political backwardness and ignorance
      of the peasants, nor in the least wipe out the difference between
      “the Russian revolt, senseless and ruthless,” and the revolutionary
      struggle; we do not in the least forget the endless means which the
      government has at its disposal for the political deception and
      demoralisation of the peasantry. But from all this there follows only one
      thing, that it would be senseless to make the peasantry thevehicleof the revolutionary movement, thata party would be insane toconditionthe revolutionary character
      of its movement upon the revolutionary mood of the peasantry. There can be
      no thought of proposing anything of the sort to the Russian
      Social-Democrats. We say only that a working-class party cannot, without
      violating the basic tenets of Marxism and without committing a tremendous
      political mistake,overlookthe revolutionary elements that exist
      among the peasantry and not afford those elements support. Whether or not
      the revolutionary elements among the Russian peasantry will be able to
      behave at least in the way the West-European peasants behaved at the time
      of the overthrow of the autocracy is a question to which history has not
      yet provided an answer. If they prove themselves incapable, the
      Social-Democrats will have lost nothing as far as their good name or their
      movement is concerned, since it will not be their fault if the peasantry
      does not respond (may not have the strength to respond) to their
      revolutionary appeal. The working-class movement is going its own way and
      will continue to do so, despite all the betrayals of the big bourgeoisie
      or the petty bourgeoisie. If the peasantry should prove itself
      capable—then that Social-Democracy which did not afford it support
      under these circumstances would for ever lose its good name and the right
      to be regarded as the leading fighter for democracy.

Returningto the first question presented above, we must say that the
      demand for a “radical revision of agrarian relations” seems
      unclear to us: it may have been sufficient fifteen years ago, but we can
      hardly be satisfied with it today when we must provide guidance for
      agitation and, at the same time, guard ourselves against the defenders of
      small economy, all too numerous in present-day Russian society, who have
      such “influential” supporters as Messrs. Pobedonostsev, Witte,
      and very many officials in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. We take the
      liberty of offering our comrades for discussion the following approximate
      formulation of the third section of the practical part of our programme:

“TheRussian Social-Democratic working-class party, giving its support to
      every revolutionary movement againstthe present state and social system, declares that it will support the
      peasantry, insofar as it is capable of revolutionary struggle against the
      autocracy, as the class that suffers most from the Russian people’s lack
      of rights and from the survivals of serfdom in Russian society.

“Proceedingfrom this principle, the Russian Social-Democratic
      working-class party demands:

“1)The abrogation of land

      redemption[8]and quit-rent payments and of all duties at present obligatory for the
      peasantry as a tax-paying social-estate.

“2)The return to the people of the sums of which the government and the
      landed proprietors have robbed the peasants in the form of redemption payments.

“3)The abolition of collective liability and of all laws that hamper the
      peasant in disposing of his land.

“4)The abolition of all remnants of the peasant’s feudal dependence
      on the landlord, whether they are due to special laws and institutions
      (e.g., the position of the peasants and workers in the iron-foundry
      districts of the Urals) or to the fact that the land of the peasants and
      the landlords has not yet been demarcated (e.g., survivals of the law of
      easement in the Western

      territory),[9]or to the fact that the cutting-off of the peasant land by the landlords
      has left the peasants in what is in actual fact the hopeless position of
      former corvée peasants.

“5)That peasants be granted the right to demand, in court, the
      reduction of excessively high rents and to prosecute for usury landlords
      and, in general, all persons who take advantage of the necessitous
      condition of the peas ants to conclude with them shackling agreements.”

Weshall have to deal in particular detail with the motives for such a
      proposal—not because this is the most important part of the
      programme, but because it is the most disputed and has a more remote
      connection with the generally established truths that are accepted by all
      Social-Democrats. The introductory proposition on (conditional)
      “support” for the peasantry seems to us to be necessary,
      because the proletariat cannot and must not, in general, take upon itself
      the defence of the interests of a class of small property-owners; it can
      support it only tothe extent to whichthat class is
      revolutionary. And since it isthe autocracy that is today the embodiment of all that is backward in
      Russia, all the survivals of serfdom, lack of rights, and
      “patriarchal” oppression, it is essential to point out that
      the working-class party supports the peasantry only to the extent that the
      latter is capable of revolutionary struggle against theautocracy. Such a proposition is apparently excluded by the
      following proposition in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group:
      “The main bulwark of the autocracy resides precisely in the
      political apathy and intellectual backwardness of the peasantry.” But this
      is not a contradiction of theory alone; it is a contradiction of reality,
      because the peasantry (like the class of small property-owners in general)
      is distinguished by the duality of its character. We do not wish to repeat
      well-known political-economic arguments showing the internal
      contradictions of the condition of the peasantry, but we shall call to
      mind the following characterisation by Marx of the French peasantry of the
      early fifties:

“TheBonaparte dynasty represents not the revolutionary, but the
      conservative peasant; not the peasant that strikes out beyond the
      condition of his social existence, the small holding, but rather the
      peasant who wants to consolidate this holding, not the country folk who,
      linked up with the towns, want to overthrow the old order through their
      own energies, but on the contrary those who, in stupefied seclusion within
      this old order, want to see them selves and their small holdings saved and
      favoured by the ghost of the Empire. It represents not the enlightenment,
      but the superstition of the peasant; not his judgement, but his prejudice;
      not his future, but his past; not his modern Cevennes, but his modern
      Vendée” (Der 18. Brumaire.S. 99[10]).
      The working-class party needs precisely to support the peasantry which is
      striving to overthrow “the old order,” i.e., in Russia, first and
      foremost the autocracy. The Russian Social-Democrats have always
      recognised the necessity to extract and absorb the revolutionary side of
      the Narodnik doctrine and trend. In the programme of the Emancipation of
      Labour group this is expressed not only in the above-quoted demand for
      “a radical revision,” etc., but also in the following words:
      “It goes without saying, incidentally, that even today, peoplewho are indirect contact with the peasantry could, by their activities
      among them, render important service to the socialist movement in
      Russia. Far from repelling such people, the Social-Democrats will make
      every effort to come to an agreement with them on the basic principles and
      methods of their work.” Fifteen years ago, when the traditions of
      revolutionary Narodism were still alive, such a declaration was
      sufficient; but today we must ourselves begin to discuss “basic
      principles of work” among the peasantry if we want the
      Social-Democratic working-class party to become a vanguard fighter for
      democracy.

Butdo not the demands we propose lead to the support, not of the peasants
      themselves, but of their property, to the consolidation of small economy,
      and do they correspond to the entire course of capitalist development? Let
      us examine these questions that are of the highest importance to the
      Marxist.

Therecan scarcely be any differences of opinion among Social-Democrats
      with regard tothe substanceof the first and third demands. The
      second demand, by its essence, will probably give rise to differences of
      opinion. The following considerations, to our view, speak in its favour:

      1) it is a fact that the redemption payments represented direct plunder of
      the peasants on the part of the landlords, that the payments were not only
      for peasant land but for serf-holding rights, and that the government
      gatheredmorefrom the peasants than it paid to the landlords; 2)
      we have no grounds for regarding this fact as something ended and filed
      away in the archives of history, for the aristocratic exploiters
      themselves do not so regard the peasant Reform when they lament over the
      “sacrifices” they made at the time; 3) precisely today, when
      the starvation of millions of peasants is becoming chronic, when the
      government that wastes millions on gifts to the landlords hind
      capitalists, and on an adventurist foreign policy, is haggling for pennies
      off the grants to the starving—precisely today it is appropriate and
      essential to recall what the rule of the autocratic government that serves
      the interests of the privileged classes has cost the people; 4) the
      Social-Democrats cannot remain indifferent spectators of peasanthunger and the death of peasants from starvation; there have never been
      two opinions among Russian Social-Democrats as to the need for the most
      extensive help to the starving, and hardly anyone will claim that serious
      help is possible without revolutionary measures; 5) the expropriation of
      the royal

      demesne[11]and greater mobilisation of lands belonging to the aristocracy, i.e., that
      which would result from the implementation of the proposed demand, would
      bring only benefit to the entire social development of
      Russia.Againstthe proposed demand we shall probably be told,
      mostly, that it is “impracticable.” If such an objection is
      supported only by phrases against “revolutionism” and
      “utopianism,” we can say in advance that suchopportunist
      phrasesdo not frighten us in the least and that we do not attach any
      significance to them. If, however, the objection is supported. by an
      analysis of the economic and political conditions of our movement, we
      fully admit the necessity for a more detailed discussion of the question
      and the benefit accruing from a polemic in regard to it. We would only
      mention that this demand does not stand alone but forms part of the demand
      to support the peasantryto the extentthat the latter is
      revolutionary. History will decide precisely how and with what strength
      these elements in the peasantry will manifest themselves. If we understand
      by the “practicability” of a demand its general
      correspondence, not to the interests of social development, but to a
      specific state of economic and political conditions, it will be a totally
      fallacious criterion, as Kautsky showed convincingly in his polemic with
      Rosa Luxemburg when the latter spoke of the “impracticability”
      (for the Polish working-class party) of the demand for Polish
      independence. Kautsky, at that time, pointed out as an example (if our
      memory serves us) the demand made by the Erfurt Programme on the election
      of civil servants by the people. The “practicability” of this
      demand is mere than doubtful in present-day Germany, but none of the
      Social-Democrats proposed limiting the demands to the narrow bounds of
      what is possible at a given moment or under given conditions.

Further,as far as the fourth point is concerned, probably no one will object,
      in principle, to the necessity forSocial-Democrats to advance the demand for the abolition of all remnants
      of feudal dependence. What will need clarification will probably be only
      the formulation of that demand, as well as its extent, i.e., whether it
      should include, for example, measures for abolishing thefactualcorvée dependence of the peasants that was created by the
      cutting-off of peasant lands in

      1861.[12]In our opinion this question should be decided in the affirmative. The
      tremendous significance of the actual survival of corvée
      (labour-service) economy has been fully established in literature, as has
      also the tremendous retardation of social development (and the development
      of capitalism) caused by this survival. The development of capitalism, of
      course, is leading up to, and will in the end result in, the elimination
      of these survivals “of their own accord, in a natural way.” But,
      first, these survivals are extraordinarily tenacious, so that their rapid
      elimination is not to be expected; secondly—and mainly—the
      “natural way” means nothing other than the dying-out of the
      peasants who,in point of fact(due to labour-service, etc.), are
      tied to the soil and enslaved by the landlords. It stands to reason that
      under these circumstances the Social-Democrats cannot allow their
      programme to be silent on this question. It may be asked: How could this
      demand be implemented? We think it unnecessary to deal with this in the
      programme. The implementation of this demand (as of almost all others in
      this section, depending on the strength of the revolutionary elements
      among the peasantry) will, of course, necessitate a detailed examination
      of local conditions by local, elective, peasant committees as a
      counterweight to the Committees of

      Nobles[13]that accomplished their “legal” plunder in the sixties; the
      democratic demands of the programme adequately define the democratic
      institutions required for this purpose. This would be precisely the
      “radical revision of agrarian relations” of which the
      programme of the Emancipation of Labour group speaks. As we said above, we
      agree in principle with this point of the Emancipation of Labour group’s
      draft and would only: 1) specify the conditions under which the
      proletariat can struggle for the class interests of the peasantry; 2)
      define thecharacterof the revision—the abolitionof the remnants of feudal dependence; 3) express the demands more
      precisely.

Weforesee another objection: a re-examination of the question of cut-off
      lands, etc., should lead to the return of those lands to the
      peasantry. This is obvious. But will this not strengthen small property,
      small holdings? Can the Social-Democrats desire the replacement of the big
      capitalist economy, which is perhaps being conducted on the lands
      plundered from the peasantry, by small economy? This would, indeed, be areactionarymeasure!

Weanswer: undoubtedly the substitution of small-scale for large-scale
      economy is reactionary, and we must not favour it. But the demand we are
      discussing isconditionedby the aim of “abolishing the
      remnants of feudal dependence”; consequently, it cannot lead to the
      fragmentation of big holdings; it applies only to old holdings that are,
      in essence, based purely on the corvée system;in relation to
      thema peasant holding, free of all medieval impediments (cf. point
      3)is progressive, not reactionary.It is, of course, not easy to
      draw a line of demarcation here, but we do not believe that any one demand
      in our programme can be “easily” realised. Our role is to
      outline the basic principles and basic tasks; those who will be called
      upon to decide these problems in practice will know how to consider the
      details.

Thepurpose of last point is identical with that of the preceding: the
      struggle against all remnants of thepre-capitalist mode of
      production(so abundant in the Russian countryside). It will be
      remembered that the renting of land by peasants in Russia very often
      serves to conceal survivals of corvé relations. The idea for this
      last point was borrowed from Kautsky, who pointed out that, in relation to
      Ireland, even Gladstone’s liberal administration had enacted a law in 1881
      granting the courts the right to reduce excessively high rents, and
      included in the number of desirable demands: “The reduction of
      exorbitant rents by courts especially set up for this purpose”
      (Reduzierung übermässiger Pachtzinsen durch dazu eingesetzte
      Gerichtshöfe).This would be particularly useful in Russia
      (given the condition, of course, of the courts being democratically
      organised) in the sense that it would eliminate corvée
      relations. We think that to this we could also add thedemand for the extension of the laws on usury to cover enslaving
      agreements; in the Russian village, bondage is so widespread, so heavily
      oppressive to the peasant in hiscapacity as a worker, so
      exceedingly obstructive to social progress, that the struggle against it
      is particularly necessary. And it would not be more difficult for a court
      to establish the enslaving, usurious character of an agreement, than to
      establish the excessive nature of rent.

Ingeneral, the demands we propose reduce themselves, in our opinion, to
      two main objectives: 1) to abolish allpre-capitalist, feudal
      institutions and relations in the countryside (the complement to these
      demands being contained in the first section of the practical part of the
      programme); 2) to give the class struggle in the countryside a more open
      and conscious character. We believe that precisely these principles should
      serve as a guide for the Social-Democratic “agrarian
      programme” in Russia. It is necessary to dissociate ourselves
      resolutely from the attempts, so numerous in Russia, tosmooth
      downthe class struggle in the countryside. The dominant
      liberal-Narodnik tendency is distinguished precisely by this feature, but,
      in resolutely rejecting it (as was done in the “Appendix to the
      Report of the Russian Social-Democrats at the International Congress in
      London”), we should not forget that we must take particular note of the
      revolutionary content of Narodism. “To the extent that Narodism was
      revolutionary, i.e., came out against the social-estate, bureaucratic rule
      and against the barbarous forms of exploitation and oppression of the
      people which the state supported, to that extent Narodism had to be
      included, with relevant amendments, as a component part of the programme
      of Russian Social-Democracy” (Axelrod,Present Tasks and
      Tactics, p. 7). Two basic forms of the class struggle are today
      intertwined in the Russian countryside: 1) the struggle of the peasantry
      against the privileged landed proprietors and against the remnants of
      serfdom; 2) the struggle of the emergent rural proletariat against the
      rural bourgeoisie. For Social-Democrats the second struggle, of course, is
      of greater importance; but they must also indispensably support the first
      struggleto the extent that it does not contradictthe interests
      of social development.It is no accident that the peasant question has always occupied and
      continues to occupy such a prominent place in Russian society and in the
      Russian revolutionary movement: this fact is a reflection of the great
      significance still retained by the first of the two forms of struggle.

Inconclusion, there is one possible misunderstanding against which we
      should be on guard. We spoke of Social-Democracy’s “revolutionary
      appeal” to the peasants. Does this not mean diffusion, is it not
      harmful to the essential concentration of forces for work among the
      industrial proletariat? Not in the least; the necessity for such a
      concentration is recognised byallRussian Social-Democrats; it
      figures in the draft of the Emancipation of Labour group (1885) and again
      in the pamphlet,The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats(1898). Consequently, there are absolutely no grounds at all to fear that
      the Social-Democrats will split their forces. A programme is not an
      instruction; a programme must embrace thewholemovement, and in
      practice, of course, first one and then another aspect of the movement has
      to be brought into the foreground. No one will dispute the necessity to
      speak in the programme of rural, as well as industrial, workers, although
      in the present situation there is not a single Russian Social-Democrat who
      would think of calling upon the comrades to go to the village. The
      working-class movement, however, even apart from our efforts, will
      inevitably lead to the spread of democratic ideas in the
      countryside. “Agitation based on economic interests will inevitably
      lead Social-Democratic circles directly up against facts that show clearly
      the closest solidarity of interests between our industrial proletariat and
      the peasant masses” (Axelrod,ibid., p. 13). For this
      reason an“Agrarprogramm” (in the sense
      indicated; strictly speaking, of course, it is not an “agrarian
      programme” at all) is an absolute necessity for Russian
      Social-Democrats. In our propaganda and agitation we constantly come upon
      peasant-workers, that is, factory workers who retain their connections
      with the village, who have relatives or a family in the village and who
      travel back and forth. Questions of land redemption payments, collective
      liability, and rent are of vital interest even to large numbers of
      metropolitanworkers (to say nothing of the workers in the Urals, for example, amongst
      whom Social-Democratic propaganda and agitation has begun to find its
      way). We should be remiss in performing our duty, if we did not take care
      to give precise guidance to Social-Democrats and class-conscious workers
      who go to the village. Nor should we forget the rural intelligentsia,
      elementary school teachers, for instance. The latter are so humiliated,
      materially and spiritually, they observe so closely and know from their
      own experience the lack of rights and the oppression of the people, that
      there can be no doubt at all of the sympathetic reception among them of
      Social-Democratic ideas (given the further growth of the movement).

Thesethen, in our opinion, should be the component parts of a programme
      of the Russian Social-Democratic working-class party: 1) a statement on
      the basic character of the economic development of Russia; 2) a statement
      on the inevitable result of capitalism: the growth of poverty and the
      increasing indignation of the workers; 3) a statement on the class
      struggle of the proletariat as the basis of our movement; 4) a statement
      on the final aims of the Social-Democratic working-class movement—on
      its striving to win political power for the accomplishment of these
      aims—and on the international character of the movement; 5) a
      statement on the essentially political nature of the class struggle; 6) a
      statement to the effect that the Russian absolutism, which conditions the
      lack of rights and the oppression of the people and patronises the
      exploiters, is the chief hindrance to the working-class movement, and that
      the winning of political liberty, essential in the interests of the entire
      social development, is, therefore, the most urgent political task of the
      Party; 7) a statement to the effect that the Party will support all
      parties and sections of the population that struggle against the autocracy
      and will combat the demagogic intrigues of our government; 8) the
      enumeration of the basic democratic demands; then,
      9) demands for the benefit of the working class; and 10) demands for the
      benefit of the peasantry, with an explanation of the general character of
      these demands.

Weare fully conscious of the difficulty of providing a completely
      satisfactory formulation of the programmewithout a number of conferences with comrades; but we consider it
      essential to set about this task, believing (for the reasons indicated
      above) that postponement is impermissible. We hope to receive the aid of
      all the theoreticians of the Party (headed by the members of the
      Emancipation of Labour group), as well as of all socialists doing
      practical work in Russia (not only of Social-Democrats: it would be very
      desirable to hear the opinion of socialists of other groups and we would
      not refuse to publish their opinion), and the aid of all class-conscious
      workers.

[1]Lenin wrote “A Draft Programme of Our Party” when he
      was still in exile, as can be seen from the date "1899” which he
      inscribed on the manuscript and from the letter to the editorial group
      ofRabochaya Gazeta(see p. 207 of this volume). The mention o
      the year 1900 in the text is evidently due to the fact that the issue ofRabochaya Gazetafor which it was intended was to have appeared
      that year.

“ADraft Programme of Our Party” represented a continuation of
      Lenin’s work on programmatic questions which he had begun in prison in
      1895-96 (see present edition, Vol. 2, “Draft and Explanation of a
      Programme of the Social-Democratic Party,” pp.  93-121).

[2]Karl Marx,Critique of the Gotha Programme(Marx and Engels,Selected Works, Vol. II, Moscow, 1958, p. 16).

[3]Karl Marx,Capital, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 763.

[4]The Erfurt Programmeof German Social-Democracy was adopted in
      October 1891 at a congress in Erfurt in place of the Gotha Programme of
      1875; the errors in the latter were exposed by Marx in hisCritique of
      the Gotha Programme.

[5]Lenin refers to the leaflets distributed by the government during the
      strikes of 1896 and 1897. In the leaflet issued on June 15, 1896,
      S. Y. Witte, Minister of Finance, appealed to the workers not to listen to
      “agitators” (socialists) and to await better living conditions
      and improved working conditions from the government to whom “the
      affairs of the factory owners and the workers are alike dear.” Witte
      threatened to punish the workers for the unauthorised cessation of work as
      “an illegal act.”

[6]Lenin refers to the “Provisional Regulations Governing the Military
      Service of Students of Higher Educational Institutions Expelled from Those
      Institutions for the Joint Organisation of Disorders.” Under those
      regulations, approved on July 29 (August 10). 1899, students who
      participated in actions directed against the policeregime obtaining in institutions of higher learning would be expelled from
      universities and drafted into the tsarist army as privates for a term
      ranging from one to three years. The students of all higher educational
      institutions demanded the repeal of the “Provisional
      Regulations” (“The Drafting of 183 Students into the
      Army” in the present volume, pp. 414-19).

[7]Rural Superintendent(Zemsky Nachalnikin
      Russian)—an administrative post instituted by the tsarist government
      in 1889 to strengthen the authority of the landlords over the
      peasants. The Rural Superintendents were appointed from among the local
      landed nobility and were granted very great powers, not merely
      administrative, but also judicial, which included the right to arrest
      peasants and administer corporal punishment.

[8]Land redemption paymentswere established by the
      “Regulation Governing Redemption by Peasant Who Have Emerged from
      Serf Dependence...” adopted on February 19, 1861. The tsarist government
      compelled the peasants, in return for the allotments assigned to them, to
      pay redemption to the landlords amounting to several times the real price
      of the land. When the deal was concluded, the government paid the landlord
      the purchase price, which was considered a debt owed by the peasant to be
      repaid over a period of 49 years. The instalments to be paid annually by
      the peasants were called land redemption payments. These were an
      intolerable burden on the peasants and caused their impoverishment and
      ruin. The peasants formerly belonging to landlords alone paid nearly 2,000
      million rubles to the tsarist government, whereas the market price of the
      land that the peasants received did not exceed 544 million rubles. In view
      of the fact that the adoption of the redemption scheme by the peasants did
      not take place at once, but dragged on until 1883, the redemption payments
      were not to have ended before 1932. The peasant movement during the first
      Russian revolution (1905-07), however, compelled the tsarist government to
      abolish the redemption payments as from January 1907.

[9]Law of easement—the right to make use of the property of
      others. In the present case Lenin refers to survivals of feudal relations
      in the Western Territory. After the Reform of 1861 the peasants were
      compelled to render supplementary services for the benefit of the
      landlords for the right to use common roads, meadows, pastures, water,
      etc.

[10]Karl Marx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte(Marx and
	Engels,Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1958, p. 335).

[11]Royal demesne—lands belonging to members of the
      tsar’s family.

[12]Cut-off lands(otrezki)—the pasture lands, woods,
      etc., which the landlords “cutoff,” i.e., of which they
      deprived the peasants when serfdom was abolished in Russia.

[13]Gubernia Committees of Nobleswere set up by the tsarist
      authorities in 1857-58 to draw up plans for the “Peasant Reform,”
      for the “emancipation” of the peasants.

Theplans put forward by the Committees of Nobles envisaged an
      “emancipation” that would benefit only the landlords; the
      committees effected the “legal” plunder of the peasants in the
      sixties.